25 November 2013

UPDATED 05 Dec 2013: Yesterday at the start of the 2 PM hour (central time) Janet Mefferd issued an apology for the interview with Mark Driscoll, and also removed all the links and files related to this incident.
For the record, my assumption is that Janet has acted inside her own good conscience and has reached this conclusion based on her own review of the events. Until/unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should all operate under that assumption for two reasons:
1. It speaks best of Mrs. Mefferd. It assumes that she is neither a victim nor the kind of drive-by hooligan some in the blogosphere have made her out to be.
2. It keeps our own consciences clear, and avoids acting like rumor mongers and people with hard hearts.
If there is more to discuss here, I'll come back to it.

Yes, I know. I should be doing something else, Like Ministry. This is the third of 3 posts on this subject, tracking back to yesterday and earlier today.

Back on Thursday, I got a tweet from some of my magic helpers that I needed to listen to the next segment of Janet Mefferd when it came on the web (recorded). So I waited for it to go to the archive, and it took a little while, but here's what I found:

I have a few comments about this video and the ensuing firestorm, so what else have you got to do? Prepare for Thanksgiving?

The first comment is this -- Mark Driscoll is obviously a fantastic historian. I have covered that in the previous post.

But let's forbid that we seem too harsh. Mark may be battling the flu, or be on cold medicine, and he may be too weak to take it. But the uncut video reviewed there seems to be less than congruent with the events Pastor Driscoll has described.

In that context, Janet certainly went after Mark in her radio interview -- something, let's face it, Mark has never allowed before. Maybe no one has ever really had the audacity to try since Driscoll is well-known as a manly man. But Janet addressed the appearance of wrong-doing at the StrangeFire conference in the first segment, and then moved on to Mark's new book in the next segment.

Put on your Big Girl Pant-TAYS!If you want to DANCE!

That brings me to my second comment: I think it's a lot less than credible for Driscoll to believe nobody would eventually call him on his antics if he gave enough interviews. Let's be serious: he did what he did for publicity, and it was exactly what he wanted. For him to feign suffering indignity at this point can only be accounted for as part of the show -- not as any actual loss of dignity. He doesn't have a scrap of that left to lose.

But let's turn to the second segment for a moment just for the sake of finishing this post well. It's one thing to mention you have heard something from someone you know (and to do so in print), and it's another thing use those ideas without attribution. That, ultimately, is the hazard of writing non-fiction. Over the weekend, Wade Burleson weighed in about his view of the documentation problems with Driscoll's book. I don't know anyone who would write a book using someone else's ideas without fully attributing them at all points. I think Janet's argument gains full force when she cites the Mars Hill web site's fair use statement and points out that it seems like Pastor Driscoll may have the problem of a double standard.

Further, let's also remember that Mark Driscoll is a man and not a venerated saint. As Carl Trueman points out in his piece from this weekend, someone ought to tell the Emperor when he's not wearing any clothes -- and if that's not politically correct, we have a problem of Christian ethics to deal with when it comes to the lifestyles of the Young, Restless and Reformed.

However, what has surfaced, apparently through Mark's publisher, is this alternate version of the last 2 minutes of the audio:

What's unusual about this clip, I think, is that it turns out that it was allegedly recorded by the fellows at Mars Hill. I had no idea that was ever done when one does an interview, but everyone lives the way they live. It's obviously different than the end of the interview which went out live, and it bears another strange artifact: the voice of Mark's producer during the end of the interview.

That artifact is strange for one reason only: plainly, Mark's voice is over the phone; his assistant (I am told it is the voice of Justin Dean) is plainly not on the phone -- his voice doesn't sound like it's coming over the phone line but from another (better quality) mic. If they were doing a remote or some sort of studio-to-studio broadcast, that makes sense, but a phone interview? Obviously they do it differently than many.

It seems to me we have to clear this one up, too. By "we," I don't mean tiny, unable-to-hiatus me and then DJP. I mean "we" the people tossing out accusations who are public people. And I think there's an easy way to do this.

The version published to YouTube by the Janet Mefferd Show and Salem Radio has the breaks cut out, as podcasted radio often does. That audio is an air check, recorded from the output of the board in Janet's studio. It is recorded on the Dallas end of the line. While Ms. Mefferd's people have been adamant that they did not use the kill switch at any time for this interview (it's clear this is true during the interview earlier as Janet and Mark talk over each other a couple of times), it's possible, I guess, that someone's finger slipped. However, it's unlikely that any fingers slipped on the Seattle side of the phone. Since they were plainly recording the show, I say they come forward with the whole thing including the breaks so we can see what Pastor Driscoll was doing while the listeners were listening to commercials. I'm sure he got moral support from Mr. Dean as the interview was not conducted from a position of genuflection on the part of Ms. Mefferd, and it will speak to the authenticity of the whole "alternative ending" now provided by Mars Hill and Tyndale.

What we certainly don't want to find out is that Mark Driscoll hung up in frustration, Mars Hill lied to Tyndale, and has caused Justin Taylor to promulgate a lie and accuse Ms. Mefferd of a few things he might regret having said. What we want is to bring all the facts to light, exonerate Mark Driscoll, demonstrate that he doesn't live in a fantasy world where he is the dictator of thing past, present and future, and that the rest of us can retire since the only safe future for the Church is the one in his hands, according to his book, with or without a footnote. That's the safe path, and I pray that we can all take it -- because after the events at StrangeFire, Mark's batting average is at stake. (which is not to say: again)

Can we live with the consequences of what we find when all the facts come to light?

I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, did that Really come from Tyndale, where Mark says he's still there? If so, did Mefford have him potted down and didn't hear him say that. Its interesting that she "assumed" (and we know that THAT means) that he checked out on her and it wasn't just a dropped cell or something. I knew when I heard her comment that she was assuming something. Unless she had heard him say something about leaving the show and the click.

One of my favorite complaints over this weekend is the one about what a lousy piece of journalism this is.

Before I break out the torches and pitchforks, let me admit that I would not have spent as much time on the topic of the lack of footnotes as Janet did. I think it ran long. I think it also turned into something Driscoll has never had to deal with before: direct criticism.

As the member of this blogging team who has been a vocal critic of watchbloggerism and all manner of shady tactics in pursuit of the truth, Janet didn't hardly trick Driscoll here. She was talking about his book and its source material. What he wanted, I am sure, was to level the criticism on the world that it had never thought of the church the way he has before, and now he's here just in time to save it. I think that, because this segment ran long, Janet didn't get a chance to ask him who his views are actually different than, for example, classical main-line liberal Protestantism which plainly valued unity far more than truth. She didn't get to ask why his pronouncements that the church is dying and nearly dead are any different than Nietchszche -- excluding, of course, the obvious answer that God told him so.

But: as a bit of journalism, it chased the ball -- and the key reason this question of plagiarism/failure to cite a source played so long was Driscoll's failure to own it. That is: it dragged on because he did have one off-handed citation to no pages and no particular volume. He learned this at the diner table, not in the Library. Peter Jones is his friend, not some stuff professor. Isn't Janet Rude, BTW? Wasn't he doing her a favor?

This second segment dragged on like a scene from the African Veldt because Driscoll wanted it to drag on -- away from him. Janet, to her credit -- as a journalist -- would not be misdirected by shabby excuses.

That, BTW, is journalism. We haven;t seen it in so long I suspect we have forgotten what it looks like.

This second segment dragged on like a scene from the African Veldt because Driscoll wanted it to drag on -- away from him. Janet, to her credit -- as a journalist -- would not be misdirected by shabby excuses.

Gee Frank next you know you'll be demanding that pastors preach from the Word and be among the flock. Or politicians to represent the people that elect them.

Sometimes, character is all you need to know to make up your mind on something.

I have had my own dealings with Janet Medford and her “people” (yes, she has “people”; she runs a radio show so she needs to have “people”), and those dealings have left me with a very high view of her integrity, her sincerity, and her trustworthiness. I looked into her and into her show pretty closely, was pleased with what she did, and was impressed with her handling both of her business and of the important matters facing the church.

I have not had direct dealings with Mark Driscoll, but his history is quite well known.

So, whom do you trust? It’s easy to say, “Well, it’s she-said, he-said, and I don’t actually know, so I’ll just not form any judgments.” That doesn’t cut it for me. Janet has a great track record for integrity. Mark has a great track-record for self-serving, self-promoting dishonesty. Is it possible he’s telling the truth and she’s not? I suppose anything’s possible. Am I justified in assuming that the opposite is the truth? Absolutely. Does anyone want to tell me I’m being unfair to Mark in assuming he’s not the truthful one? Big deal!

Think about it; even if we clear Mark of this charge, he remains the guy who calls the Holy Spirit his own personal pornographer and who thinks he’s got more to learn from Sabellian heretics with big churches than from pathetic orthodox guys with little churches. The truth of the matter is, this does nothing to establish his character one way or another. The guy is a dangerous wolf, no matter who Janet Medford is. So why would we even question this? Why would we doubt Janet for a second?

I for one am not willing to throw her under the bus for Mark’s sake. You want to accuse her of dishonesty, bring me two or more credible witnesses. So far we have Mark Driscoll: that’s 0 - count them - ZERO credible witnesses. Janet Medford still has a clean slate in my book.

Great comment above, Frank, puts things into a right perspective. The length and (seeming) redundancy of the "beating" over footnoting appeared to be a bit much (certainly to us who don't understand the legalities and ethics of these things) but as you say "Driscoll's failure to own it" likely kept her on it. I'm thinking she would have moved on after that segment if she'd gotten the chance.

Sounds like the 'hang-up' deal was just an honest mistake..Driscoll (for whatever reason)didn't respond soon enough and Janet assumed the worst and cut it there.

Whatever can be said about the way the interview was "handled" by Janet, rightly or wrongly, Godly or notso-muchly (mileage may vary); I am thankful it occurred and thankful for her undaunted stand for biblical and pastoral integrity. May God raise up more such men and women.

He said the Holy Spirit gave him visions of other people having sex. Obviously dishonest, but hey, it's his special Holy Spirit thing. So it's self promotion, too.

He said he needs to hang out with a heretic like TD Jakes because all the little people in Acts 29 have smaller churches than him and can't tell him anything. That's obvious self-promotion, and I think it's dishonest. I'm not a big Acts 29 fan, but I'll bet one or two of those brothers could teach Mark something.

He went to MacArthur's church to promote what he knew was an unwelcome book, and lied about the security there.

And did I mention that he says the Holy Spirit gives him visions of other people having sex?

As one who sat under Driscoll's teaching, "in-person" if that makes any difference, for 7 years, there were quite a few discrepancies when he went into personal anecdotal mode. Some things grew and grew from some little thing to become some huge thing. Major life events, like God audibly speaking, became foggy because the locations changed drastically. Someone charged the pulpit once with a sword, now a second person apparently tried. I don't know, the man may certainly be more of a Paul Bunyan than a John Bunyan

But to be fair, an honest moment came in December, 2011 when he said he was not qualified to be a pastor when he made himself one. He did not step down and to this day ... okay, I'll say it, he's not qualified now. And that's something that has stuck with me for two years -- how does a pastor (generally speaking) "requalify" himself. Hope that's not a can of worms. :)

Both Janet Mefferd's 'tone' and the alleged hang-up are red herrings. The behavior here is strikingly similar to the Obama White House: misdirect, misdirect, misdirect. Driscoll's plagiarism, his Brierly interview, his professed gift of pornographic visions, and his endorsement of T.D. Jakes are enough to disqualify him from leadership. Let's keep these central issues in the crosshairs. With no apologies to Rob Bell, Truth Wins.

I confess that when my son and I listened to the Mefferd program, we both were a bit uncomfortable with her persistence. We agreed with each other that we were glad she wants to persuade and help Driscoll be accountable for his probable plagiarism, but that she hammered the point a bit too aggressively and continued to do so once he acknowledged that he would check to see if he was in the wrong. We may think he’s all wet, an ego maniac, and so forth, but I’m not sure it’s the interviewer’s place to demand that the interviewee promise to take some action that the interviewer has set forth. It is certainly her job to point out the salient facts, ask questions, etc. I’m not sure it’s her job to hammer someone until they give up the answer she wants. Perhaps that’s the way it’s done in the secular world. I’m wondering if Christians should ape that approach or if there is another way.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for calling someone to repentance. And let’s understand, I’m not a Driscoll fan, and I think the Strange Fire parking lot circus and blog/Twitter aftermath was a disgrace. It just seemed to us that she was relishing putting him on the spot a bit too much, almost in a self-righteous way. It was an impression. I could be wrong about that; I’ve been wrong before and am open to correction and suggestion on any and all matters.

I haven’t talked to Carl about this yet, but the Ref21 article is a good reference point. On the general principles laid out there, I am in complete agreement with him.

But I’m wondering how many of us heard the second half of the show, after Driscoll allegedly hung up? Janet got quite emotional. Her voice was breaking; you could hear her practically crying. Again we found this a bit much, but that very well may be a function of her personal relationship with Dr. Jones. But the phone call from the Driscoll supporters are keepers, and play directly into the hands of Carl’s Ref21 article.

By the way, Peter Jones is someone I once knew quite well. Don't look for him to issue a statement. He might, but he is also very single-minded and focused on his work. It wouldn't surprise me if a year or two went by before he took notice of this brouhaha.

I think your view of it confuses me. You're saying she shouldn't be either upset or enthusiastic?

Back when the world was still young (in my eyes) television supported two fellows who shaped the world as we know it today: William F. Buckley, and Phil Donahue. Both of those fellows, when interviewing someone who was full of it, were, frankly, gleeful in taking them apart. Especially, I might add, when the person in question was pretending to be somehow indignant that they would ask such questions.

The great contrast to that sort of interviewing seems to me to be the clown shows which pass for daytime talk today.

What Janet did was not hardly an episode of Firing Line -- but that's because of the low-brow guest she had. It couldn't go to the high road because the fellow in question has a mansion and a truck stop on the low road.

What I liked about Tom Chantry’s first comment is the way he consistently misspelled Janet’s last name to illustrate how words can to be used or misused to not give credit where credit is due. Brilliant!

This ongoing fiasco has been interesting, to say the least. I commented on Janet Mefferd's Radio Show on facebook that it would be interesting to see if either party would be willing to give it a second chance. Give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt that the plagiarism was unintentional, and give him the opportunity to go to the publisher and to Peter Jones to make it right. Give Mefferd the benefit of the doubt that their show assumed that Driscoll had disconnected, and give them the opportunity to call Driscoll again to finish the interview. (I, for one, would be interested in hearing what the other questions were that Mefferd planned to ask, especially since she said that he had a lot of good things to say in his book.)

I agree with Frank that what we saw was journalism, and that we have forgotten what it looks like. If Matt Lauer were asking those questions, would we all be reacting the same way? Do we lower our standards for journalism if the journalist is a Christian? And a woman?

I've only listened to Mefferd once before, when she interviewed the author of the World-Tilting Gospel. I don't know how much time is appropriate to pass (to give Driscoll the opportunity to correct his errors), but I hope that Mefferd makes an attempt to follow-up the interview. And I hope Driscoll agrees to give it another go.

Even with a single note, you can deflate the charge of plagiarism, if you so desire. Consider three possible ways that section could have been noted.

1) Document every reference, with volume, page number, ibids, etc. The full-on, research-paper approved method. The best way to serve the reader (also, make them footnotes). By the way, this book has 261 endnotes, so why not add at most a couple dozen more?

2) A single, all-encompassing note (or section intro) declaring your dependence on the source. Something like "The material in this section is a brief summary of the argument put forth by Dr So-and-so in his excellent books ABCD and WXYZ (info). I recommend you read those for a thorough study of this issue. I thank So-and-so for his research into this area and for allowing me to incorporate his work here."

It's not proper format. Not nearly as thorough. But it gives full credit where it's due, points readers in the right direction, and lets them know that you're not the genius who developed this thought but just a guy who recognizes good work when he sees it.

3) Put a single note saying "For further reading..." or "See also..." and recommend the other books. Let the reader think you developed it on your own, or you're on equal footing with the guy whose argument you're taking. He's just another potential resource for the enterprising reader, not your source.

All that to say this. If Driscoll wanted to present that argument without an overwhelming amount of notes, there's a really lazy way to do it that still gives full credit to Jones. He didn't. He could have made it clear that even if he doesn't footnote every single phrase or idea, he's dependent on Jones. He didn't.

He knows full well it's someone else's argument, and that readers will think it's his. But somehow it's someone else's problem for calling him out on self-exalting deception.

In referring to Buckley and Donahue, you said, "Both of those fellows, when interviewing someone who was full of it, were, frankly, gleeful in taking them apart."

True. That is why I asked the question whether Christians should ape the secular approach in their interviewing. My take from what you have said is that you see no problem with it. You may be right, but I'm wondering what other believers think about this.

And yes, I think the alleged plagiarism is very serious and needs to be addressed. But I can't see it throwing me into emotional turmoil as it seemed to do to Janet. No, there is something much more, something much deeper, going on here than I am aware, I think.

Mark is weird to me. He also seems "orthodox". I appreciate how you stepped up here Cent, but this is a bit too vague for me. I simply dismiss Driscoll, as I do others who seem to be orthodox, because he seems fishy, and not completely upright and forth right.

I pray our Lord will touch his heart, and if he is a "wolf" as Tom C. says, then he will turn and repent, and have a self hatred for his playing around with the Gospel.

Have a terrific Turkey day. And truly have a very blessed and Christ filled Joyous Thanksgiving! You're a fine apologist for the Gospel.

I am shocked - SHOCKED - that new evidences of plagiarism in Pastor Mark's books are emerging as the days pass. How could we ever have guessed that such a thing would happen?

I mean, Pastor Mark is a manly-man. He's got a big church. Clearly, clearly we can trust him. Janet Mefferd (see, I learned to spell) is just a small-market disc jockey with pretensions to journalism. And a woman. She just had to be wrong.

So now, I just...I can't...I don't know what to think! People are posting side-by-side scans of Pastor Mark's books with those he plagiarized? How could we have ever seen this coming??????

I think I may have to go disappear in a day spa for an all-morning aroma therapy session in a dark room in order to avoid looking this problem straight in the face. I'll come up with some explanation. It probably will have something to do with how this evidence comes from bloggers, and you can't trust anything coming from those maternal-cellar-dwelling troglodytes.

Wake me up when Pastor Mark starts his next book tour. I want to be in line for his autograph. I don't even care if he signs his name or Peter Jones'!

I listened to the interview...she had no intention of interviewing regarding the book Driscoll had written...she sounded like she wanted to hammer him over pretty petty stuff...this was not a scholarly treatise...this is what you get in books like this and he actually did reference the author. It was pretty clear she wanted to unload on him...

I'm old enough to remember pro football players referring to 'the Turk'; the man (or was it a ghostly avatar) knocking on the training camp dorm bedroom door before breakfast: "Smith! Coach wants to see you; bring your playbook").

"Driscoll! Carson and some friends want to see you. Bring your books!"

However, before I get carried away,I have to point out that you used "different than" instead of "different from", the correct form; which clearly shows you use Slate and such like as your primary sources and brings in to question the entirety of your article. I suggest you take a leave of absence from ministry and submit yourself to a board of reference who will monitor your comings and goings and submit all of your work to a third party forensic auditor.

This should prove a salubrious "word to the wise" for your "blogger" colleagues who exist for no other purpose than the hurl the mighty from their seats.

If you live in the 18th century, maybe. "different than" is actually acceptable when what follows is an elliptical clause. My spelling of 10,000 times worse than my grammar, so if you want to ban me for language issues, please strike where the iron is hot.

That said, my spelling is atrocious, but not criminal. It's unethical at best to plagiarize; it is actually a violation of the law in some cases, which ought to be the point rather than whatever it is you're trying to say.

Thanks for letting my remarks stand. I apologize because clearly I have caused offense to some extent. Please forgive me. I am grateful for what you have written, clearly a lot of work; I don't read Driscoll's books or listen to his sermons (any more) just on principle.

My comments were intended as pure satire

In your reply you wrote

" It's unethical at best to plagiarize; it is actually a violation of the law in some cases, which ought to be the point rather than whatever it is you're trying to say."

The "Turk" was the guy who if he showed up you knew you were cut from the team. No fun for the player, and surely not for the man assigned the task -- usually I gather an equipment guy or something like that. It's very clear from your comments and those of Mr. Chantry, where you stand on the whole Driscoll phenomenon and I could not be more grateful that you are going to the wall on this one -- and just the same with the Strange Fire conference.

"Different than": just a hook really, to hang a little devil's advocate for Mr. Driscoll and his enablers. Poisoning the well with respect to "bloggers" is the same approach his good buddy from Chicago took following Elephant Room -- these amateurs have no right, no qualification to critique us professionally trained, professional experts who are revered wherever we go.

What I wanted to do was make a nasty satire, or sarcasm, or irony... whichever term is appropriate...on Driscoll's position.

And I meant "Salon", not "Slate".

Thanks again for your great work. I am sorry for the unwise unwise and careless construction of my comments and for any offense to you and to your colleagues.

I was sharing how Mark "could be" a plagiarist on my FB, and a friend of mine remarked this way:

"If you don't know something for sure are you not just spreading gossip? Seems like I remember scripture saying that if an accusation was being made against a pastor or elder that it should be done in an appropriate fashion with 2 or more witnesses. Not sure your post qualifies."

I will investigate your suggestion sir; now being that two writers could differ in good faith regarding "than" or "from" which, by why of disclosure is a distinction I hunt out obsessively in my reading;

Is not Mr. Driscoll suggesting something similar; Ie that he wrote in good faith, and he's Mark Driscoll and one man's plagiarism is another man's "incomplete bibliography" for which he might be marked down from A- to B -- but SURELY NOT academically disciplined and dismissed?

Since there is no real ambiguity in the from/than distinction and it is a usage preference, obviously Mr. Turk does not need the egregious punishments outlined above. On the other hand, he has raised his hand against one of the LORD'S choice servants and prophets -- For THAT, for joining with women and bloggers of low rank he he surely deserves a few minutes in the cage with Pastor Mark. And Pastor Mark has laid it out in at. least one message how that whole thing proceeds. Poor student gets in the cage and whack! quickly, ferociously finally, he is smacked painfully down-- a reminder of how inferior he is to the instructor and let nobody forget it.

As someone who actually was a career broadcaster, journalist and radio news director (and one time talk show host), I think Frank is spot on about the dearth of real journalism today. And honestly, if the desire of genuine journalism (not to mention that of logic and formal reasoning) is to follow the truth wherever it leads, I don't think there is (or should be) a distinction between "Christian" and "secular" journalism - with the proviso that we are talking about the same foundational rules that all journalists are supposed to follow. If anything, Christian journalists ought to have an even higher regard for truth than any other. If you publish a book, you'd best be able to back up your assertions in the book. If you agree to go on a talk show to discuss your book, be prepared to be challenged. If you choose programs that function only as electronic puff pieces, I suppose you can expect an easy ride. But if you are going on a program where issues are discussed, truth claims are made and tested, and facts are checked, you'd better be ready. And don't be upset with the host/anchor/journalist if they uncover something in your material that, as Nixon once famously said, "falsified the truth."

Sometimes I miss doing radio very badly. Other days, I am glad I am out of it. In the meantime, I go by Luke 12:

“But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops."

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.